The very wide subject of my report today has become since 1972 the groundwork for many commentaries in the international press, and at the same time, the western businessmen have gradually taken a very deep interest in the commercial aspects of this problem.
I could not pretend to make here a complete report on all the aspects and corollaries of this question; I mean the Europe-U.S. relations, the inner problems of the EEC confronted with the individual Eastern policies of some members, the questions of disarmament, and the resulting problems of the alternative: ‘“Trade – Security” – all problems which are generally grouped under a very imprecise name: “The East-West Detente”.
My purpose here is to ask myself whether the expected developments of this DETENTE will really bring any effective security to Europe and will produce anything positive for the future of the Captive Nations, or whether they only mean a new step of the soviet application of their “peaceful coexistence” doctrine and a new stage: in the progressive denial of the defence of values, and human rights.
The so-called “political realism” often used by Western politicians whenever they want to make one-way concessions is a formula essentially revealing their lack of any political initiative and providing them with merely an excuse. But of course – and I do not need to remind you of this – it is always Moscow who takes advantage of the tensions it creates, of the conflicts it produces, of the threats it makes to others and at a second level it also takes advantage of the proposals it makes to reduce these tensions, these threats, and receives all the moral profits of a country ‘which calls for normalization, détente and cooperation.
Moscow provides us with the formulas. Peace – Free Flow of Goods – Peaceful Coexistence- Trade and Cooperation between East and West…and so on, and in exchange it receives effective concessions, capital goods and technical cooperation. Far better: Moscow accuses the West of Bellicism, Imperialism, and Aggression, and receives all the benefits of a reduced Western defence – a result of the pressures of the mass media and the public opinion, very sensitive to the soviet arguments, but which do not realize the gradual strengthening and increasing pretensions of the other side.
In such conditions, any Westerner who dares to put under question the honesty of Moscow is immediately classified as a “Hawk”, a “Backward minded man”, a “non-realist”. Thus, a lot of diplomacy was needed by Mr. JOBERT (the French Secretary of Foreign Affairs) to express at the Helsinki Conference his reserves regarding the developments of the conference, and to disguise them at the same time under elegant formulas in order not to be subject to such a classification. Brezhnev’s reaction was immediate: Mr. JOBERT was invited to Yalta; the effect of his prudent declaration was thus seriously reduced, and the bad impression of the very name YALTA on the French minds, was almost obliterated.
We have indeed come a long way since the times when, in 1961, at the Second Conference on the Political Warfare of the Soviets, (organised in Rome, by Mme S.LABIN and former Minister Y.M. LOMBARDO), one of the main reporters, could call for a thorough limitation of the beginning of West-East trade because of its dangers… without being accused of mental deficiency. Since then, the USSR, despite the incident in Prague in 1968, has succeeded in imposing a new image of itself – “Friendly and Businesslike”. During the same time KHRUSHCHEV… KOSSIGYN… KIRILLIN… MIKOYAN… GVTCHIANI and BREZHNEV have shown to the world a new soviet mask: of the “Commercial State-traveller”, a man half-serious and half hoaxer too…
Since I972 BREZHNEV has multiplied his proposals for a cooperative coexistence because of the anticipated political profits, but also undoubtedly because of the economic failure of the Soviet system and COMECON. The French political review “L’EXPRESS” (No.1146) gives us some particularly revealing figures of the dead end of the soviet economy: figures coming, from the well-informed review ‘Politika’. The economic backwardness, according to these figures, is obvious not only in the corn or wheat productions, and in the agricultural field, but more and more in the very important fields of modern industrial equipment and in all the fields of what we call “know-how”, that is to say: Management, Merchandising, Marketing, and the Computer Industry.
Also obviously, there is a lack of Capital for long or medium-term investments. As the representatives of the Captive Nations’ vital interests, we have to make clear and underline, the soviet determination to take advantage and to make a profit from the Western capital, (which should go to the developing countries of the third world before all else), and their determination to use the western cooperation, to solve if they can, their crisis without modifying their economic priorities and without reducing their armament and war industry budget. For example, a few days ago, the Western world was informed of the acquisition by the USSR of a MIRV force while the US-USSR trade agreements and the French-Soviet long-term cooperation agreement provided the Soviet economy with goods, industrial equipment, capital, and technical support.
At the same time, in Vienna or Helsinki the Soviets brandish new formulas, “Don’t make war, make trade”, but the “walls” and the “curtains” do remain. (While some young West Germans were speaking at the international meeting in East Berlin on the theme “Free flow of ideas”, two families were crossing the Berlin wall and risking their lives). And the Soviet representatives regularly repeat that the free flow of ideas and goods does not mean the free flow of all ideas…They think of a coexistence of two distinct and separate worlds, as in the times of LENIN (“In this world today, there are two worlds” V.I. Lenin).
While nobody in the high political circles really believes the soviet declarations, many Western newspapers like to underline that MOSCOW provides us with “real proof” of its goodwill and that all the conflicts in which Russia was taking part, directly or indirectly, (Biafra, Yemen, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Laos..) belong to the past; that the espionage within the western states is disappearing (the expulsion of the 105 diplomats from Great Britain is already forgotten).
Revealing the new tendency, the Military Attache of the Soviet Embassy in Paris was caught while trying to steal a laser device at the aeronautical exhibition at the Bourget-Airport. Of course, industrial spying is psychologically more reassuring for public opinion, than is espionage in the political, military, or atomic fields.
Despite all the endeavours of the Eastern bloc, the realizations appear more as propaganda achievements than real progress. Of course, in five years the volume of the E-W trade has doubled, but the rate of the Eastern trade remains in the 2 – 4% of the total foreign trade of each of the Western countries even when these countries do compete to become the privileged partner of the East, and even when they offer long term loans to go beyond the old barter relations.
Mr. Raymond ARON reported recently in the French newspaper LE FIGARO (25 July) that the USSR prefers to have bilateral relations and looks with suspicion at any attempt at a multilateralization of the commercial relations. He recalls that in general the exports toward the USSR are made at lower prices than the international trade prices and that the prices even then are applied to the trade with the developing countries. Mr. ARON expresses his doubts and fears that the developments of US diplomacy could favour the evolution toward a soviet protectorate in Western Europe.
Samuel PISAR who had analysed in his book “The Weapons of Peace” the prospects of East-West trade and who is considered a supporter of the U.S. policy in this field, sees this trade as a solution and as a remedy to the political problems, and believes in what he declared to the French economist R.PRIOURET, “When the goods begin to flow, the ideas flow too. This process is unavoidable”. M. PISAR who is a Polish Jew, and a refugee, should remember that the economy of the Hitlerian state has proved the contrary. And if we listen to the inner voices of the USSR – V. MAXIMOV (expelled from the Union of the Soviet Writers), who writes in an open letter to the Nobel Prize Winner, H. Boll, that the inner opposition to the Soviets will be the loser in the East-West negotiations, “God only knows, how much we shall have to pay for the devilish games between the simple-minded of the modern diplomacy…”.
But despite all these voices, the Western countries are in competition and rivalry, and they all want to be the most favoured, to be the first on the way to the “detente”. Thus, on the 10th of July Mr. V. GISCARD d ‘ESTAING, in Moscow, signed an agreement of economic and industrial cooperation, and on the 26th of July Mr. JOBERT and Mr. KIRILLIN, together signed the Programme for the “deepening” of cooperation between the USSR and France in the fields of Science and Technology. Meanwhile, Mr. Edgar FAURE, following a two-hour-long talk with BREZHNEV, expressed his faith in Mr. BREZHNEV’s goodwill and declared that “To think of the danger of Russian tanks breaking over Europe was ridiculous”. Mr. FAURE and Mr. PISAR should not forget that despite his peaceful proposals BREZHNEV continues with the strengthening of the USSR military forces in Europe, (more than three-quarters of which are on the European side, and only one-quarter on the Asian and Chinese borders), and in the Mediterranean. To the 5000 tanks that were in Central Europe in 1972, another 1500 tanks were added in 1973. An important increase in quantity, and modernization, of the Artillery, and the Air Force (with renewal of 50% of the tactical Aircraft). The naval forces have reached the level of 231 battleships and 350 submarines (of which 40 are missile-launching), as it tells us in the Paris-Match review of 11 August. According to “JANE’s FIGHTING SHIPS” (25 July l973) the soviet Navy has two new atomic submarines, one “miracle” – a cruiser of 10.000 Tons -“Kara’,’ and the 45.000 Tons aircraft-carrier “Kyiv”, “which gives a new dimension to the Soviet naval power”, adds the above-mentioned book.
Thus, Moscow looks for new economic and financial means where it can find them, that is to say, in the Western world, but 40% of the real soviet budget, refloated this way, is devoted to ensuring the predominance of the Russian military forces.
Some politicians would say that there is no immediate danger because China will be the first target. Others would say that such a power is only meant to be used at the given time as a counterpart in the negotiations for the mutual balanced forces reduction (MBFR) in Europe. But we know that such a reduction could not seriously endanger the Soviet military superiority in this area. (For instance, it is why President POMPIDOU refused to have this matter discussed at Helsinki…). Probably one will talk in November, at Vienna, on this subject, but nobody could believe it may lead to the withdrawal of the soviet forces from Hungary Czecho-Slovakia, nor even from East Germany.
The Detente as it is seen by the European and U.S. Governments, has a counterpart which is:
l)the increase of the military force of Russia and
2)the strengthening of the pressure upon the intelligentsia and the inner opposition, in the entire USSR.
Thus while 1972/73 was in international relations the period of Helsinki, and of BREZHNEV’s trips around the world, a “good time” for Detente, in the Soviet Union it was the worst period for the intelligentsia (repression against the Sakharov-Tchalidze Committee, Amalrik, Solzhenitsyn, and others…), and for the non-Russian nations. In GEORGIA, in UKRAINA, in AZERBAIJAN – economic deficiencies were the pretext for the strong national repressions, for the nomination of “stronger” men, coming from the KGB ranks. At the POLITBURO the Russification goes on with the expulsion of Mr. MJAVANADZE(Georgia), and Mr. SHELEST (Ukraina), together with the growing importance of the KGB men, the Russians: ANDROPOV and SHELEPIN.
We have to say and repeat to the Western governments that their Eastern Policy, is a policy of trade at any price, at any cost:
The Western taxpayers are paying for the long-term loans and the low prices, and for a trade which benefits, and will for many years benefit essentially Russia
This Policy dangerously delays the development of the Third World.
This Policy involves a certain support of the USSR against CHINA… and, as says the experienced French General BEAUFRE (Le FIGARO / 21 August): “leads to a political neutralization of the U.S. and gives a predominance to Russia in European Affairs”.
Anyway, this Policy makes more and more difficult the construction of a politically united Europe.
It appears clear that this Policy will not bring a progressive liberalization in Eastern Europe, but on the contrary: each step forward, toward outside detente, is followed in the inner policy of the Socialist Bloc, by two steps backward.
This policy “at any price” is developed at the expense of the Captive Nations: it means a denial of the right to Liberty & Justice for the 250 million people of 19 non-Russian colonized nations and the same for the 120 million genuine Russians.
Up to now, we have already had the iniquitous “Article 2” of the UN Charter which gave Moscow free hands and unmatched power to oppress her 14 non-Russian Colonies.
Since the I968 – PRAGUE Affair, Moscow’s imperial “rights” over the Socialist Bloc were less and less seriously challenged by the Western Powers. But the new trends of cooperation, which lead the West to Helsinki and Vienna, almost grant diplomatic recognition of this special super-right.
This is a way toward a definite abandonment of all civilized-world moral values, to obtain the possibility of trade with the Socialist Bloc.
The Western world is going to feed the jailer and the murderer and support its attempt to repress more and more of our unfortunate nations. But we must repeat and remind the West that this game too may be dangerous and that what today is our jail may be tomorrow the grave of Europe. May I, to end my report, quote the words of the world-known Russian scientist and fighter for human rights Andrei SAKHAROV about the present state of Detente:
” Detente without democratization, Detente for which the West should
accept our rules of the game, would be a dangerous Detente.
It would not settle any of the international problems and would only
mean a capitulation in front of our strength – be it real or over-rated”.
Archive of the OUN in UIS-London. - Levan Zourabishvili: Eastern Policy of the West as a Consolidating Factor for the Soviet-Russian Empire... [1973]
